Talk:Blender Game Engine

Time Stamps

In cases of "current" and "at the present" please put a date into the text. It is important when the reader want's to check the current status. --87.78.11.36 (talk) 07:24, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

critics

The article should concentrate more on why someone would want to use GameBlender over any other engine. Maybe some screenshots of the logic brick system? And a mention of CrystalBlend with a screenshot of the new logic brick system that Jorrit proposed? I'll re-write it when I have time.

--Gorgan almighty 12:18, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

License

Considering it's a free open source thingy, the games created with it should be as free and open source as well? Or at least like Wolf3d, Doom, Quake (free code, paid data/models/maps)? 189.5.136.3 03:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it allows us to make non-free games, but there is little piracy protection for game makers. To this date, I have not heard of anyone selling a Blender game. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kjknohw (talk • contribs) 06:40, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I think stuff you create with Blender (models, videos, and in this case games) can have whatever license you want; though if you modify the engine and then distribute that modified version you might have to make it avaiable under the same license as Blender. Though if you wanna be sure, it shouldn't be hard to find the answer on the official site, it's probably in the one of the FAQ's --TiagoTiago (talk) 06:55, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I was playing with the Blender game engine, and was seriously considering using it for my (hopefully commercial) game, but then I read multiple posts (most said they aren't legal advice) and finally the GNU/GPL license agreement itself. Apparently how I want to commercially publish (EXE without .blend file or source) is not allowed. Doing so would be in violation of the license (which says if you use ANY part of the GNU protected program as a base for your commercial game/program, it has to be open source too, and that you can't link to the standalone player from your application, or even distribute it with your commercial product). There is a little funky wording where there could be a "loop hole", but I doubt it would hold up in court if it came to that.

The Blender website (docs section) currently has a page about this that is a bit vague and actually partly wrong (as far as I can tell). It appears that the only way to legally build your game with the Blender standalone player (without giving away all your source code for free) is to distribute your .blend file separately, which leaves pretty much zero security against piracy and players hacking the game (esp. a problem for multiplayer). Again, if you give away your source code, that would make it pretty easy for someone to hack a multiplayer game, wouldn't it? Anyway, I doubt distributors like Steam would very much like to sell a .blend file that can't run itself. For the record, I'm perfectly fine with protecting Blender and the player, but only in a way that actually lets you make and sell games with it without so many restrictions. If the "brass" is reading this, I recommend LGPL, MIT, or BSD license for the standalone player, if at all possible. This would follow the "precedent" that any media created with Blender should be able to be used freely, even commercially. Nobody with commercial inclination is going to want to use this otherwise, because there's a legal risk. (Also, this is not legal advice...) - Commandur (talk) 23:52, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Currency

"However, Ton Roosendaal decided to release the source code to Blender if £100,000 could be donated. A rally for the funds was started and Blender's supporters raised the €100,000 required to release the blender source in a mere 7 weeks."

So, which one is correct? 217.235.105.192 04:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

£100,000, I think... --24.252.131.59 (talk) 16:01, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Read THIS

I'm self publishing a game I'm making using this engine,if this appears on the news,will you make it a page.~Tailsman67~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.178.176.128 (talk) 23:12, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Suggest Merging with main Blender (software) page

A lot of this information is based on a previous version of the Blender (software) and is largely irrelevant. Also some of the details are incorrect: name, features, etc. I would suggest that this becomes a subsection of the main Blender (software) page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blender_(software)

Sparkwoodand21 (talk) 13:19, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with your suggestion. I do agree that this article requires a lot of work, but a proper overview of the engine (including comparison with other engines) would be much too lengthy to include in the main Blender article. My opinion is that this article should be updated to reflect the current features of the engine in a format consistent with articles about other game engines. The main Blender article should have a paragraph or sub-section mentioning the game engine with a link to the full article. Blendenzo (talk) 04:37, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Good plan. If we use a suggested style from... say... the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unity_%28game_engine%29 page and detail it for 2.6x version of the BGE.

Also, is it still called Game Blender? I thought it was called Blender Game Engine?

Sparkwoodand21 (talk) 18:45, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

UPBGE separate page

it has been mentioned here that there is no news about the original bge at this point.

upbge is an active project, and as such, will continue to grow until it eclipses the page it is currently a heading on...

Longpinkytoes (talk) 12:37, 9 August 2019 (UTC)